What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5271979?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply to this decision and the interim suppression order

How much money was awarded in case 5271979?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5271979?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5271979?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12036449-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5271979?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply to this decision and the interim suppression order

How much money was awarded in case 5271979?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5271979?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5271979?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12036449-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Rangiora Avenue, Kaiwharawhara, Wellington 6035 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5271979 — Rent arrears

Order

No suppression orders apply to this decision and the interim suppression order granted by way of the Tribunal’s order dated 3 June 2025 no longer applies.
The landlord’s claim for abandonment is withdrawn.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing that took place by telephone.
The tenants did not attend although they were telephoned, they did not answer when called. The hearing proceeded in their absence because I consider they have been served and have had notice of the hearing.
Mr O’Connell’s personal name was removed from the application – he is an employee and property manager rather than the landlord, who is the property management company as named in the application and on the tenancy agreement.
The landlord’s application seeks termination of the tenancy on the basis of abandonment and rent arrears.
The landlord withdrew its application for abandonment as the landlord accepted that it had now got possession and the tenant had informed the landlord they had left the premises.
At the hearing the property manager told me that the tenancy began on 3 May 2024 and told me that it was for a fixed term ending on 22 February 2026.
However, on reviewing the documentation filed, the documentation does not support this oral submission. The only tenancy agreement filed is a one that is signed for a fixed term that starts on 4 May 2024 and ends on 16 February 2025.
There is no documentation filed to show that a new fixed term tenancy was put in place after that earlier fixed term ended.
Therefore, on the evidence before me, I find it more likely than not that the tenancy began as a fixed term tenancy and then, once it came to an end, changed to a periodic tenancy.
After a change in the law in January 2025, a tenant can give 21 days’ notice to end a periodic tenancy (Section 51(2A) RTA).
The landlord says that the tenant initially said that they wanted to leave and so the landlord started looking for a new tenant to replace them.
An email dated 15 May 2025 has been provided to the Tribunal, this shows that the landlord had some form of indication from the tenant that they wanted to end the tenancy prior to 17 May 2025 - because the property was already being marketed at that stage.
The landlord was then told by one of the tenants that they had already left the country and that the other tenant would be dropping off the keys shortly. The tenant who was emailing him said they thought the property was now empty. This information was sent by email on Saturday 17 May 2025.
The landlord then went to the property and discovered it was empty. At the hearing the date given by the landlord for this inspection was 20 May - that is a different date to that given on the application form, which is 19 May.
The landlord considers that they have possession. The tenancy has clearly ended.
I find it more likely than not that the date in the original application is correct as this is the first working day after the email was sent by the tenant advising the property manager that the property was likely empty and was the date put on the application form that was filed just a few days after the inspection (when the property manger’s memory would likely have been clearer).
I find it most likely that the landlord took possession on 19 May 2025. The landlord has been looking for a new tenant.
The landlord says that when they inspected the property no issues were found. The bond has since been released to the landlord.
After the release of the bond, I am not satisfied that there are any rent arrears arising as at the date the landlord took possession.
When 21 days’ notice is not given to end a periodic tenancy, subject to principles relating to mitigation, rent in lieu of notice may be awarded. This is compensation rather than arrears.
The inconsistency between the documentation and the oral evidence and submissions means I cannot be at all clear how much rent in lieu of notice ought to be awarded (if any at all).
In any event, as set out above a rent in lieu of notice claim is a compensation claim – the landlord’s application only referred to rent arrears. The landlord did not update their application to reflect any further amounts they were seeking from 23 May 2025 in advance of the hearing. This means that the tenants had no notice that the sum the landlord sought had increased – while this is obvious in a rent arrears claim where the tenancy is ongoing it is not so obvious in a compensation claim where the tenant has moved out and the landlord has taken possession. This means that an award (in relation to rent in lieu of notice for a periodic tenancy) would likely in any event have been limited to the sum in the application. That sum has since been extinguished by the release of the bond.
The application for rent arrears/rent in lieu of notice is dismissed.
I have not granted name suppression as this was not requested by either party. The interim suppression order made in the earlier order of 3 June 2025 no longer applies.

Order

No suppression orders apply to this decision and the interim suppression order granted by way of the Tribunal’s order dated 3 June 2025 no longer applies.
The landlord’s claim for abandonment is withdrawn.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing that took place by telephone.
The tenants did not attend although they were telephoned, they did not answer when called. The hearing proceeded in their absence because I consider they have been served and have had notice of the hearing.
Mr O’Connell’s personal name was removed from the application – he is an employee and property manager rather than the landlord, who is the property management company as named in the application and on the tenancy agreement.
The landlord’s application seeks termination of the tenancy on the basis of abandonment and rent arrears.
The landlord withdrew its application for abandonment as the landlord accepted that it had now got possession and the tenant had informed the landlord they had left the premises.
At the hearing the property manager told me that the tenancy began on 3 May 2024 and told me that it was for a fixed term ending on 22 February 2026.
However, on reviewing the documentation filed, the documentation does not support this oral submission. The only tenancy agreement filed is a one that is signed for a fixed term that starts on 4 May 2024 and ends on 16 February 2025.
There is no documentation filed to show that a new fixed term tenancy was put in place after that earlier fixed term ended.
Therefore, on the evidence before me, I find it more likely than not that the tenancy began as a fixed term tenancy and then, once it came to an end, changed to a periodic tenancy.
After a change in the law in January 2025, a tenant can give 21 days’ notice to end a periodic tenancy (Section 51(2A) RTA).
The landlord says that the tenant initially said that they wanted to leave and so the landlord started looking for a new tenant to replace them.
An email dated 15 May 2025 has been provided to the Tribunal, this shows that the landlord had some form of indication from the tenant that they wanted to end the tenancy prior to 17 May 2025 - because the property was already being marketed at that stage.
The landlord was then told by one of the tenants that they had already left the country and that the other tenant would be dropping off the keys shortly. The tenant who was emailing him said they thought the property was now empty. This information was sent by email on Saturday 17 May 2025.
The landlord then went to the property and discovered it was empty. At the hearing the date given by the landlord for this inspection was 20 May - that is a different date to that given on the application form, which is 19 May.
The landlord considers that they have possession. The tenancy has clearly ended.
I find it more likely than not that the date in the original application is correct as this is the first working day after the email was sent by the tenant advising the property manager that the property was likely empty and was the date put on the application form that was filed just a few days after the inspection (when the property manger’s memory would likely have been clearer).
I find it most likely that the landlord took possession on 19 May 2025. The landlord has been looking for a new tenant.
The landlord says that when they inspected the property no issues were found. The bond has since been released to the landlord.
After the release of the bond, I am not satisfied that there are any rent arrears arising as at the date the landlord took possession.
When 21 days’ notice is not given to end a periodic tenancy, subject to principles relating to mitigation, rent in lieu of notice may be awarded. This is compensation rather than arrears.
The inconsistency between the documentation and the oral evidence and submissions means I cannot be at all clear how much rent in lieu of notice ought to be awarded (if any at all).
In any event, as set out above a rent in lieu of notice claim is a compensation claim – the landlord’s application only referred to rent arrears. The landlord did not update their application to reflect any further amounts they were seeking from 23 May 2025 in advance of the hearing. This means that the tenants had no notice that the sum the landlord sought had increased – while this is obvious in a rent arrears claim where the tenancy is ongoing it is not so obvious in a compensation claim where the tenant has moved out and the landlord has taken possession. This means that an award (in relation to rent in lieu of notice for a periodic tenancy) would likely in any event have been limited to the sum in the application. That sum has since been extinguished by the release of the bond.
The application for rent arrears/rent in lieu of notice is dismissed.
I have not granted name suppression as this was not requested by either party. The interim suppression order made in the earlier order of 3 June 2025 no longer applies.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5271979 — Rent arrears at 6 Rangiora Avenue, Kaiwharawhara, Wellington 6035

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5271979 — Rent arrears at 6 Rangiora Avenue, Kaiwharawhara, Wellington 6035

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions